| Title |
Automating Perforator Flap MRA and CTA Reporting
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Digital Imaging, January 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10278-017-9943-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christopher J. Lange, Nanda Deepa Thimmappa, Srikanth R. Boddu, Silvina P. Dutruel, Mengchao Pei, Zerwa Farooq, Ashkan Heshmatzadeh Behzadi, Yi Wang, Ramin Zabih, Martin R. Prince |
| Abstract |
Surgical breast reconstruction after mastectomy requires precise perforator coordinates/dimensions, perforator course, and fat volume in a radiology report. Automatic perforator reporting software was implemented as an OsiriX Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine (DICOM) viewer plugin. For perforator analysis, the user identifies a reference point (e.g., umbilicus) and marks each perforating artery/vein bundle with multiple region of interest (ROI) points along its course beginning at the muscle-fat interface. Computations using these points and analysis of image data produce content for the report. Post-processing times were compared against conventional/manual methods using de-identified images of 26 patients with surgically confirmed accuracy of perforator locations and caliber. The time from loading source images to completion of report was measured. Significance of differences in mean processing times for this automated approach versus the conventional/manual approach was assessed using a paired t test. The mean conventional reporting time for our radiologists was 76 ± 27 min (median 65 min) compared with 25 ± 6 min (median 25 min) using our OsiriX plugin (p < 0.01). The conventional approach had three reports with transcription errors compared to none with the OsiriX plugin. Otherwise, the reports were similar. In conclusion, automated reporting of perforator magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) studies is faster compared with the standard, manual approach, and transcription errors which are eliminated. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 22 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 4 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 2 | 9% |
| Researcher | 2 | 9% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 3 | 14% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 23% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 2 | 9% |
| Engineering | 2 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 4 | 18% |
| Unknown | 7 | 32% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 30 August 2018.
All research outputs
#4,893,297
of 25,605,018 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Digital Imaging
#149
of 1,071 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#89,144
of 422,614 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Digital Imaging
#3
of 13 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,605,018 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,071 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 422,614 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 77% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 13 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.